Clean Water Portland Conducting Push Polling

 

An internet buddy of mine (who I know personally but wished to remain anonymous for fear of internet backlash) recorded this robotic phone poll last night. DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO HERE. Here is a transcript of the message:

[If you would vote] no or undecided. If you would vote yes press one.

Did you know the fluoridation chemical the water bureau would add to our water is called fluorosilicic acid and is not a naturally occurring fluoride mineral or even the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste? Instead, fluorosilicic acid is an industrial by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Press one if you are aware of this. Press two if you were not aware of this.

Did you know that following a major National Academy of Sciences report in 2006 the federal government called for a reduction of fluoridation concentrations by over 40% because of concerns people were getting too much fluoride?

Press one if you knew this. Press two if you did not know this.

Did you know that according to recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading researchers that even low fluoride levels can damage the brain, thyroid, and bones?

Press one if you were aware of these risks. Press two if you were not aware of these risks.

In light of these facts, has your opinion changed on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? If the election were held today, how would you describe your position on the measure to add fluoridation chemicals and increase water rates? Voting yes, meaning to vote yes, voting no, meaning to vote no, or undecided. 

If you would vote yes press one.

Thank you for your participation. This poll was paid for by Clean Water Portland PAC.

This is a very obvious case of push polling. It is an underhanded telemarketing technique where a political campaign, under the guise of conducting a poll, conveys innuendo and negative information about a particular stance. Very often there is no attempt at analyzing or interpreting the polling data and their sole purpose is to convey the negative information. Push polling is a form of negative campaigning (in the same category with smear tactics, fear mongering, and voter suppression) and is condemned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) [1].

As for the information contained in the push poll, its loaded with scientific falsehoods and manipulating innuendo. They continually repeat "fluoride CHEMICAL" in an attempt to play on people's misguided and unscientific fear of the word "chemical". Chemicals are all around us, sugar is one and water is another, therefore it is irrational to fear them or to believe that the word "chemical" has any sort of negative connotation. Some continued internet reading on the subject here, here, and here.

The fact that fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of an industrial process does not make it inherently unsafe. A by-product is a secondary product derived from a manufacturing process or chemical reaction. It is not the primary product or service being produced. Hexafluorosilicic acid, once put into water, converts completely into fluoride ions (F^-), hydrogen ions (H⁺), and sand [2]. It is scientifically impossible to separate naturally occurring fluoride ions from fluoride ions added artificially in this manner.

The National Academy of Sciences report (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards) has many enlightening statements including:

• Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. (p. 2)
• The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
• The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis.  It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
• It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride.  The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg.  Toxicity is weight dependent.  That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
• It references the Chinese and Iranian studies linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of their poor quality.  It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. (p. 208)
• Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)

This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back negative arguments regarding the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation because, I reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever and the study explicitly states that it was not evaluating fluoride's efficacy in preventing dental caries.

Clean Water Portland is leading a campaign of false facts, negative campaigning, and fear mongering. While you may or may not be for water fluoridation, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is the science is overwhelmingly in favor of water fluoridation, it is safe and effective. Clean Water Portland knows this and is resorting to improper campaign tactics in order to counter this damning fact. Vote yes on Measure 26-151, vote no on pseudoscience and fear.

Ascetic: – Self Initiation (2013)

The Australian post-punk/gothic rock band Ascetic: have an interesting way of describing themselves which invokes ambiguity and curiosity.

Drawn from a collective obsession with fringe philosophy and post-new-age consciousness...

Looking at one of the member's Facebook, he has Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche listed along with a few other philosophical books. GOD IS DEAD.

Marshall B. Rosenberg - Nonviolent Communication: A Langauge of Life (2003)

This book contains many useful general guidelines for understanding your own needs and properly communicating them to other people. It provides tools for increasing your empathy with other people by properly questioning them, to ascertain what their particular needs are. While I would recommend this book to people who have problems communicating, it is merely an unscientific overview of Rosenberg's own particular style of communication, which he has dubbed (I would say erroneously) Nonviolent Communication. There are no diatribes about why philosophical non-violence or pacifism should be adopted or what that exactly that means. My only working hypothesis so far is that he's named this communication style for its connotation. By naming it thus, he can have people with names like Arun Gandhi write introductions for him.

This book should be renamed Empathic Communication, so we're not drawn to any false associations. Further, this book is filled to the brim with anecdotes and very little references to psychological books. There's about two and half pages of bibliography and roughly half are not psychologically or scientifically based. There is a strong undercurrent of woo which never really overflows to the surface, with general references to "the soul" and "spiritual communion". Despite these flaws, I still found the read interesting enough to finish and even though I won't apply many of the principles in verbal communication I will still internally practice a few. I could see the use in recommending this book to people who have problems communicating their emotions.

Understanding Science - Lecture 4: Pseudoscience

Just a quick little blurb about the author of these science lectures...

Dr Colin Frayn obtained his PhD in galaxy evolution. from the Institute of Astronomy in the University of Cambridge, UK in 2002. He has since worked extensively in nature-inspired computation, data analysis, science education and combating Internet fraud. He currently lives in London, UK, and works in the finance industry.

This is from his blog found here. I would permanently link his blog to the right, but it hasn't been updated for almost a year now and would like to keep my blog list to recently updated and relevant blogs.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Understanding Science - Lecture 3: Scientific Method

Still going strong on these science lectures! Good stuff to fill your iPod with. I'm almost finished with Non-Violent Communication so another book review is coming shortly.

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Understanding Science - Lecture 2: Bayes' Theorem

Bayes' Theorem mathematically expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence: Fun stuff! Now I'm going to watch the new Game of Thrones episode while wearing my Star Trek: The Next Generation shirt. Fuck yeah!

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Understanding Science - Lecture 1: Proof

Before I continue on to today's post, a quick announcement. The prolific INVISIBLE ARTERIES mastermind has started a new blog called OPIUM HUM which is linked to the right. I knew he'd be back, just didn't think it would be so soon. Moving on, having participated in so many pointless debates with anti-fluoridation pseudoscientists, rather than taking a hardline (perhaps even confrontational) approach at argumentation with these ill read hackjobs, maybe nurturing educational tactics would be more effective. After all, anti-fluoridation people tend to like that sort of hippie crap. Thus, my next few posts will be a lecture series on understanding science (with a lowercase "s"). Part one covers scientific proof and the spectrum of certainty. Certainty is the enemy of science and you should cautious of anyone who is absolutely certain of anything (especially when a highly emotionally loaded claim is made).

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Fluoridation of Portland's Water Debate (2013)

In this battle of intellects, we have Mike Plunkett, DDS, MPH the Dental Director of CareOregon Community Health, and Assistant Professor at OHSU School of Dentistry.CareOregon Incorporated isOregon's largest fully capitated Medicaid health plan, and is responsible for delivering the comprehensive health care benefits of over 160,000 Oregonians on the Oregon Health Plan.In his role at CareOregon Community Health, Dr. Plunkett provides clinical leadership for the integration of comprehensive dental services into its existing four site primary care clinic network [1]. We've also got Alejandro Queral, MS, JD a program officer for the NW Health Foundation. Alejandro has a law degree from George Washington University Law School, an MS in Biological Sciences from Northern Illinois University and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia [2]. Looks like Healthy Kids Health Portland (Portland's pro-fluoride grassroots organization) has some serious intellectual clout to bring to the table. Representing Clean Water Portland (the anti-fluoride grassroots organization) we've got Kellie Barnes a physical therapist(?) and Rick North the former CEO of the American Oregon Cancer Society, who also explicitly states he's not a doctor or scientist. I have to say CWP is a little out gunned here, especially since throughout the debate their only peer-reviewed, quality, scientific paper (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards) they pull out in defense of their arguments has many enlightening statements in it (some of these are from my earlier fluoride mythology blog post):

• Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. (p. 2)
• The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
• The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis.  It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
• It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride.  The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg.  Toxicity is weight dependent.  That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
• It references the already mentioned above study linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of its poor quality.  It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. (p. 208)
• Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)

This study says nothing about the safety or efficacy of community water fluoridation (at .7 ppm), it is a study measuring the toxicology of high doses of fluoride. It cannot be used to back arguments regarding the safety of community water fluoridation because, I reiterate, there is no evidence within the study that fluoride at the recommended .7 ppm level has any negative health effects whatsoever.

Sources:
[1] http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-dentistry/about/academic-departments/community-dentistry/faculty-staff/plunkett.cfm
[2] http://nwhf.org/about/staff_person/alejandro_queral/

Micheal Pollan - The Botany of Desire (2001)

Co-evolution is what has shaped modern agriculture, the mass cultivation of plants, animals, and fungus for human sustenance. Our domineering and self-important collective human psyche often puts us as the final arbiters, the Gods of the Garden, beholden only to our own whims. This book attempts to flip this paradigm on its head. We are not the Gods that possess complete domination over life, at least not yet. Nature ultimately is in control (though not an intentioned or conscious control), just as animals and plants in the wild are waging evolutionary warfare on each other - selecting for resistances to chemicals, building exoskeletons against predators, increasing running muscles in carnivorous predators, increasing eye-sight capabilities to see predators, continue ad infinitum - humans are in an unwitting war of desire on the plants we cultivate. We unconsciously and consciously select plants we find useful or desirable while the plants evolve the traits we want because the plants which cater to our needs are more successful, thus their genes are further propagated. The "Gods of the Garden" phrase gives way to the more accurate "Unwittingly Cooperative Caretakers of Plants" or perhaps something equally as awkward and verbose. Throughout the book, Pollan continually connects the assumed messianic paradigm with Greek polytheism, where Gods represented different facets of life. In a simple dichotomy, Pollan separates plants to appeal to Apollonian order or Dionysian frivolity.

Apples were introduced into North America by European colonists and part of what has made them so successful is their adaptability. Apples are examples of extreme "heterozygotes", rather than expressing the the DNA of their parents in a straightforward manner (with slight mutations), apples exhibit significantly different characteristics than their progenitors. Agriculturally, apples are grown exclusively through asexual grafting with sexual seed reproduction occurring only in wild apple trees. Currently, there are still a wide variety of cultivated apple breeds and this is due precisely to their extreme genetic variability. There are 7,500 different apple cultivars with around 25 varieties grown in commercial agriculture. Apple trees grown in a cloned orchard are more prone to disease than wild varieties due to their reduced genetic fitness.  Therefore, the work of staving off harmful fungus and other such maladies falls to us, the caretakers of our genetic creations. According to Pollan, our agricultural domestication of apples has gone too far. Reduced to a few handfuls of commercially cultivated cloned varieties, the natural genetic fitness of apples has been compromised. While our genetic clones are stuck in an evolutionary limbo--pests, fungus, bacteria, and insects are forever evolving and eventually, with the right combination of genes, they're going to win.

The tulip represents the ultimate quintessential flower. Simplicity, color, and beauty with an abstractness of emotions. Tulips are for kids, states Pollan, they are simple to draw and visually uncomplicated. They are the least Dionysian of flowers, their form being extremely ordered and perhaps their visual simplicity doesn't lead to overt passionate emotions. The "tulipomania" in Holland during the 1600s was a savage uprooting of the tulip's unemotional nature, people were willing to sell their homes for the mere promissory note of future tulips. As the market spiraled out of control, with tulips being sold for obscene prices, the most sought after prize was the "break"--tulips that had a streak of contrasting, passionate color across their uniformed simplicity. These broken tulips were rare and for unknown reasons at the time, created less progeny. In the 1920s, scientists discovered that broken tulips were caused by a virus which actually weakened the vitality of the plant. This throws natural selection against a brick wall, as humans were artificially selecting for a visual trait which actually made the plant sickly and diseased. From the point of view of the tulip, the human relationship was detrimental, but from the point of view of the aphids that spread the virus, this was pure evolutionary genius.

Marijuana represents the pure Dionysian plant. Visually ugly but contained within its flowers are powerful intoxicants. Human cultivators have morphed this highly adaptable weed into plants of pure delight, eliciting ever higher concentrations of THC content. With modern techniques, the marijuana plant can be forced to overproduce and does so quite willingly. Pollan describes his own misadventures with growing marijuana in his garden, from germinated seed to the eventual paranoid and frantic uprooting of his plants. Pollan then attempts to place an intoxicating plant in terms of evolution. How did THC first manifest? Pollan lays out his best theories (although since he is not an evolutionary botanist, his hypothesis seems perhaps half-baked) and tries to place the reasons for humans seeking out intoxication within an evolutionary context. Drugs can induce feelings of "transcendence" and Pollan begins to speculate (with some scientific backing) about the purpose of memory loss and normal functioning. Our brains are sensory input machines that are under constant assault from the outside and without a memory loss function, we would be quickly overwhelmed with our sensory memories. THC has been shown to effect short term memory quite substantially and endocannabinoids are produced naturally by the body which activate cannabinoid receptors in the brain. As far as what exactly that means, scientists are still unsure but cannabinoid receptors are similar in function to monoamine neurotransmitters (such as acetylcholine and dopamine) but vary in some respects.

The potato is, even more than the apple, proof of our strong influence over the evolution of plants. Wild potatoes are toxic, inedible, and without our evolutionary influence we would not be eating them. In the case of some potatoes, this control combined with modern technology enables us to force whatever evolutionary design we see fit in almost unimaginable ways. Pollan writes about his personal experiences with NewLeaf genetically modified potatoes by Monsanto. Engineered to be resistant to the Colorado beetle, Pollan's NewLeafs grew with fervor. He marveled at their perfection, their supreme triumph over nature. Removed from the market due to pressure from the anti-GMO lobby (mostly against McDonald's, one of the largest buyers of potatoes in the United States), Pollan expressed irrational fear against eating his modified potatoes. He left them sitting on his porch in a plastic bag, unable to be sliced for a conscious-free potato salad.

To provide my final thoughts, overall I felt like while being an entertaining read, this book is not a science book and it undoubtedly isn't intended to be. Though Pollan shows an understanding of evolution, he does a fair bit of simplification and speculation. I appreciate Pollan's ability to not blindly pander to the naturalistic fallacy. When he is critical of agricultural pesticides and GMOs he's not doing it in an unintelligent way--he provides evidence and counterpoints to his ideas. He seems like what a journalist should be, somehow in the middle of two opposing ideas: modern technological agriculture and pure organic agriculture, himself wrestling between the two (though he obviously leans towards pure organic). Our ideas of agriculture run between two diametrically opposed schools of thought. In my opinion, this is a false dichotomy. The way to solve our agricultural crisis lies somewhere in the middle of the two. I like to think that Pollan agrees with me.

Clay Shirky - Why SOPA is a Bad Idea (2012)

INVISIBLE ARTERIES was just taken down today by Blogger, with the ominous tagline: "Blog has been removed." The blog police have arrived and crashed the party. It started me on a philosophical debate in my head. As an avid music fan (my life and work are dedicated to it), I've shared and downloaded thousands upon thousands of bands/artists. Sharing it is a window into your subconscious tastes, churning desires, and artistic sensibilities. Having a music blog is like having hundred of mixtapes stashed in your backpack to hand out to strangers on the street, but it is much more powerful then that outdated analogy. It's also easy to forget that there are artists slaving away, putting their hearts and souls into their music while working their minimum wage subsistence job. You could argue that without internet downloading, there would be more people buying music, therefore all artists would be lifted out of their relative monetary squalor. But, I'm not so sure. The bands just starting out would have to work much harder to get noticed and it would change the underground music economy, taking the power away from the consumers and placing it more firmly in the hands of labels and industry. For me, downloading music has been the gateway into hundreds of my favorite bands. When I like a band, I buy their records (I have a lot of LPs), I buy their t-shirts, I pay to see them live (unless I'm doing sound for them). In all but the first instance (unless the band is very DIY which so many of my favorite bands are), my money is almost entirely being contributed in direct support of the band. There is an underground music economy, bands and fans all feeding into a closed loop system, with very little corporate involvement and interference. I argue very strongly in favor of free music sharing because DIY and underground bands would have a much harder time disseminating their music and gaining fans. Indeed, many of my favorite artists would have remained anonymous to me, if Napster, Kazaa, torrents, or blogs had never existed. Free internet sharing has enriched my life and I feel like it enriches underground culture in general. Freedom of information-spread digitally throughout the world-has ushered in a new revolution of human consciousness and music downloading is inexorably linked to that revolution. Viva musica, viva libertad!

AUDIO ONLY (MP3)

Malaria! - Compiled (2001)

I've been searching mercilessly for this band's albums on the internets.  I've finally found it and I have to share, because it's some awesome post-punk/experimental stuff.  Malaria! hails from Germany and they're associated with the Neue Deutsche Welle scene.  In other news, I got my first copyright violation from the file sharing service I use.  It came from a band that I totally didn't expect to have any problems with posting.

Compiled

1. How Do You Like My New Dog 2:45
2. Kaltes Klares Wasser 3:45
3.Geh Duschen 4:14
4. Zarah 3:20
5. Your Turn to Run 4:11
6. Thrash Me 4:05
7. You You 4:25
8. Dabo 2:15
9. Geld/Money 4:00
10. Leidenschaft/Passion 3:55
11. Eifersucht/Jealousy 3:09
12. Einsam/Lonesome 2:55
13. Macht/Power 3:30
14. Tod/Death 3:55
15. Mensch 2:40
16. Gewissen 3:10

Sad Lovers & Giants - Treehouse Poetry (1991)

As the Portland fluoridation debate begins to heat up as the date of the vote lies ominously near, here's some some English post-punk to soothe your intellectual nerves.  I've gotten into a few actually worthwhile debates with anti-fluoride people since attaching a pro-fluoride button to my vest.  I honestly expected to have crazy hippies yelling at me about how fluoride is "poison", but overall most people listen and have an open mind, which is pleasantly surprising.  The extremely vocal anti-fluoride people on the internet are happily a small minority.  Anywho, Sad Lovers & Giants are a recent find (contributed by my band mate and post-punk enthusiast friend Justin Cory) and I've been enjoying them immensely.

 Treehouse Poetry

1. Toy Planes in a Southern Sky
2. Lizard King
3. Still Restless
4. Parachute of Love
5. Christmas on Easter Island
6. Criminally Sane
7. Jungle of Lies
8. The Sky is a Glove

Homosexuality: Nature's Gift to the Religious

 
Human sexuality is as diverse as the number of humans currently existing on the planet.  Part of having such interesting brains as ours makes our personal sexual tastes all the more convoluted and complicated.  At the most base, people either identify as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (identification is also not synonymous with actual sexual activity [1]).  But the fact of the matter is these terms did not exist prior the the 19th century and all of them are submerged in extremely murky water when you begin to examine scientific studies of human sexuality.

The Kinsey Reports, two separate books entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male [2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female [3], were authored primarily by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy (although there were a team of researchers involved with the study) in 1948 and 1953 respectively.  Groundbreaking in its scope and contents, it is often considered one of the most influential scientific books of the 20th century.  It also created the "Kinsey Scale", currently the most often used scale to rate sexual orientation.  The scale goes from 0 to 6, 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual [6].  Contained within contains the following enlightening quotation regarding human sexual orientation:

The histories which have been available in the present study make it apparent that the heterosexuality or homosexuality of many individuals is not an all-or-none proposition. It is true that there are persons in the population whose histories are exclusively heterosexual, both in regard to their overt experience and in regard to their psychic reactions. And there are individuals in the population whose histories are exclusively homosexual, both in experience and in psychic reactions. But the record also shows that there is a considerable portion of the population whose members have combined, within their individual histories, both homosexual and heterosexual experience and/or psychic responses. There are some whose heterosexual experiences predominate, there are some whose homosexual experiences predominate, there are some who have had quite equal amounts of both types of experience. . . .

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. . . . [4]

The lines between heterosexual and homosexual are illusionary indeed.  Although the original Kinsey Reports are somewhat dated and there are some modern criticism regarding its data collection methods, the findings are still very justifiable.  People are not easily placed into one identifiable sexual category.  What about a more modern study with perhaps a more rigorous data collection strategy?  Well, there are several.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a FAQ posted on their website with several observations based on empirical evidence:

Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not mental disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings [14].

Another paper entitled Sexual Orientation and Adolescents by Barbara L. Frankowski MD published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004 contains many enlightening quotes on the issue of sexual orientation. 

Homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available.  Societal attitudes toward homosexuality have had a decisive effect on the extent to which individuals have hidden or made known their sexual orientation. 

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.

Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity or sexual behavior (the way one chooses to express one’s sexual feelings). [5]

Another study entitled Patterns of Sexual Arousal in Homosexual, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Men measured self-identified heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men's genital responses to different groupings of erotic videos to measure arousal patterns.

Of primary importance is the question of how best to define, and operationalize, sexual orientation (cf. Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002). We chose to rely on self-identification in this study, as it seems to capture the‘‘gestalt’’of one’s sexual orientation. But as others (e.g., Sell, 1997;Weinbergetal.,1994) have pointed out, self-identification may be influenced by a number of variables and is limited by its categorical nature. The use of the Kinsey scale has also been criticized. As Kinsey et al. (1948) pointed out, there may be discrepancies between one’s sexual history, one’s physical reactions to relevant stimuli, and one’s self-reported sexual orientation [7].

And another study by the American Psychology Association (APA) entitled Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? empirically confirmed the notion that virulent homophobia is associated with repressed homosexuality.

Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies.   A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.' 

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video [8]. 

So what conclusions can we draw from these studies?  First off, the idea of a clear, categorized, life-long classification of sexual orientation is a mirage.  People are not always entirely hetero or homosexual, their choice of orientation does not always match what actually sexually arouses them (mentally or physically), and their choice of orientation and what actually sexually arouses them may change over the course of a lifetime.  Secondly, self-identification and classification is not accurate and very subjective.  Finally, men who are the most outwardly homophobic are often harboring latent internal homosexual arousal patterns. 

What is most interesting, following these findings, is that opposition to homosexuality and homosexual rights comes almost exclusively from the religious.  Are the religious unwittingly hiding their homosexuality underneath a layer of virulent hate speech and religious dogma?  Almost all of the world's major religions condemn homosexuality in their teachings and holy books and while a select few denominations may not consider homosexual sexual acts intrinsically sinful, they are almost universal in their rejection of gay marriage rights.  A notable exception being Hinduism (and that's one notable exception because there are a shitload of Hindus in the world).  I want to focus in on Christianity since it is the most religion prevalent in my country, the United States.

Homosexuality is frequently condemned in the Bible, which serves as many Christian's justification for their condemnation of homosexual activity and their opposition to gay rights, specifically Leviticus chapter 18:

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two Angels visit a man named Lot who is living in Sodom.  Lot's hut is surrounded by Sodomites who want to rape the Angels.  Lot offers his two virginal daughters to the mob as appeasement.  The Angels struck the mob with blindness and bid Lot to leave Sodom with his family immediately.  God then rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying the cities and its inhabitants.  The entire unabridged story appears in Genesis 19.

In Deuteronomy chapter 23 there are statements against homosexuality and prostitution:

23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The word "dog" is biblical talk for a homosexual.  In Samuel chapter 20 there is an interesting story of forbidden homosexual love between David and Jonathan:

20:3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. 

20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.

David has found the Lord and Jonathan would be grieved, Jonathan would do ANYTHING for David.  Oh why would that be?

20:11 And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.

Hmmmm, I wonder what they're doing in the field...

20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

Saul, Jonathan's father gets upset at this forbidden love and attempts to kill David with a javelin and fails.

20:35 And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.

20:36 And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.

20:37 And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee?

20:38 And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.

20:39 But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.

20:40 And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city. 

20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 

20:42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

While there are some liberal denominations that accept homosexuality, I would argue that it would be more in line with Biblical texts to oppose it.  Those who maintain that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality are straining.  Even though it's pretty obvious of what my position is on religion or the Bible, its probably important for me to reiterate it in case there is confusion from my above statement: the Bible is mythology, organized religion is overall detrimental to society, and Christians are suffering from wholesale delusion.

Another facet of Christian homosexual oppression is their homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, psychotherapy and religious indoctrination that attempts to subvert homosexual desires.  There are organizations like http://exodusinternational.org/ which states in their mission statement:

Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality [9].

There are numerous hilarious controversies regarding this organization, including two "ex-gay" members, one of the founders and one of the leaders of Exodus International, leaving the organization to be together [10].
Another one involved another "ex-gay" Chairman of Exodus International who was kicked out of the organization for "exhibiting homosexual tendencies."

There's http://harvestusa.org/.  Their mission statement:

We believe that our sexuality and its expression was designed by God at creation, and that our sexuality and its expression was part of God’s original and good design for mankind, and is clearly communicated to us in the Scriptures. Male and female were both created in God’s image, and we affirm that God’s perfect design for all sexual activity is between one man and one woman in the context of the marriage bond. We recognize that, as a consequence of the Fall, all men and women are sexually broken and thus relate in twisted ways to God, self, others, and nature. Therefore, all expressions of sexual activity outside of the bond of marriage are sinful and are a distortion of God’s good design. This includes all involvement with pornography, sexual fantasy, sexual addictions, adultery, homosexuality, gender distortions and any other sexual activity outside of marriage. All sexual sin grieves God and is offensive to His Holiness, and all sexual sin ultimately harms people, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual sin.

There is an entire subculture of supposed "ex-gays".  Are they really reformed or are they lying to themselves?  Is it even possible to forcefully change sexual preferences?  First off, The American Psychological Association released a study that empirically proved that homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexual people:

Hooker's work was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy [11].

If there's nothing to cure, then what purpose do these "ex-gay" support groups and homosexual "rehabilitation" services serve?  Homosexuals are sick almost exclusively in the eyes of the religious and this is certainly not backed by any psychology or current science.  The religious organizations are pushing their religious doctrines onto homosexuals, making them feel guilty for their behavior by telling them that their behavior is somehow sinful and/or not in line with Biblical teachings, and then forming support groups of other oppressed homosexuals to reinforce their persecution.  Another ADA survey, released in 2008 in response to a growing number of these homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, questioned what scientific evidence there was to whether someone's sexuality could be forcefully changed.

APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality and promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about the resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). SOCE has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other (Drescher, 2003; Drescher & Zucker, 2006).

In response to these concerns, APA appointed the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation to review the available research on SOCE and to provide recommendations to the Association. The Task Force reached the following findings.

Recent studies of participants in SOCE identify a population of individuals who experience serious distress related to same sex sexual attractions. Most of these participants are Caucasian males who report that their religion is extremely important to them (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000; Schaeffer, Hyde, Kroencke, McCormick, & Nottebaum, 2000; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002, Spitzer, 2003). These individuals report having pursued a variety of religious and secular efforts intended to help them to change their sexual orientation. To date, the research has not fully addressed age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, disability, language, and socioeconomic status in the population of distressed individuals.

There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area (e.g., Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; James, 1978; McConaghy, 1969, 1976; McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr, 1972; Tanner, 1974, 1975) found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However, this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions were initially limited to people of the same sex.

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002).

Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported [12].

With the available data we can safely conclude that these programs are not scientifically backed, that sometimes they can do more harm than good, and that they are not necessary from a psychological perceptive (self-identified homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexuals when they haven't encountered any religious indoctrination).

Another common argument against homosexual rights is that "it is not natural."  Not only does this subject one to the naturalistic fallacy, but it's also patently untrue.  There are literally thousands of different species of animals that have been recorded participating in homosexual activity.  The list spans across the entire animal kingdom (mammals, fish, insects, invertebrates, amphibians, and birds) [13].  In light of this evidence, it is incorrect to say that homosexuality is unnatural because it occurs in a massive number of natural organisms.  Also, Christians like to say that God created everything, if he did then he surely created a lot of homosexual animals and what does that say about whether God approves of homosexuality if he is a willing creator/condoner of it?  But then again, logic tends to be entirely lost on most Christians (it's always Satan's fault when its something they don't agree with).

Finally, in light of all the evidence, a stance of being against gay marriage or gay rights is indefensible when looked through the lens of science and reality (not through the Bible goggles that Christians wear, "When I look at you I see a divine creation!", to which I retort, "When I look at you I see a bad upbringing, bad reading material, and extraordinarily bad logic").  Opposing gay marriage is morally equal to opposing interracial marriage or inter-caste marriage: it is prejudiced, unwarrantable, and it is an inevitable evolution in the march towards progress that gay marriage will become equal under the law.  Marriage Equality Now!

Sources:
[1] http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf
[2] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47380.Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male?ac=1
[3] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/130954.Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Female?ac=1
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447861/
[5] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Sexual+orientation+and+adolescents%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#sec-2 
[6] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html
[7] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Cerny%20and%20Janssen%202011.pdf
[8] http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
[9] http://exodusinternational.org/about-us/mission-doctrine/
[10] http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=156
[11] http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx
[12] http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx 
[13] http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx 
[14] http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Death In June - NADA! (1985)

Death In June are an English neo-folk/post-punk band.  For some reason this record is really hard to find even on the interwebs, so I'm a little scared of posting it (the internet police are everywhere).  This band is controversial for their use of Nazi imagery.  I wouldn't get too worked up about it.  The lead singer is openly homosexual and they've collaborated with various ethnic Jews throughout their long history, they've also played in Israel and sported an Israeli flag on their webpage.

Much has been made of the origins of the name Death in June. It is sometimes considered to be an allusion to the Night of the Long Knives Sturmabteilung purge on June 30, 1934, or alternately to the 1914 assassination in Sarajevo that helped spark World War I. However, "Death in June" is actually a mondegreen, Pearce has said that he once misheard Patrick Leagas during a rehearsal and he "heard" it as "Death in June" and settled upon this chance mishearing. The group then subsequently applied it to the project in 1981. Pearce has stated that the name does not express any single idea for him and remains multifaceted [1].

  NADA!

1. "The Honour of Silence" - 3:17
2. "The Calling (Mk II)" - 5:32
3. "Leper Lord" - 1:13
4. "Rain of Despair" - 4:21
5. "Foretold" - 4:49
6. "Behind the Rose (Fields of Rape)" - 2:46
7. "She Said Destroy" - 3:32
8. "Carousel" - 4:46
9. "C'est un Rêve" - 3:24
10. "Crush My Love" - 4:13